1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s scope of adjudication, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant and the co-defendant of the first instance trial jointly and severally against the Plaintiff for payment of deposit amounting to KRW 360,000,000 and delayed payment damages, and the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a counterclaim to pay damages amounting to KRW 400,000,000 and delayed payment damages.

The first instance court accepted the plaintiff's claim against the co-defendant in the first instance court, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff.

With respect to the part against which the plaintiff lost the lawsuit, each of the defendant appealed against the counterclaim, and the plaintiff withdraws the appeal on October 16, 2017. The scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part against which the defendant lost the counterclaim.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are the same as the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In a lump sum, Defendant B’s “Defendant B” in the judgment of the first instance court is considered as “Codefendant B of the first instance trial,” “Defendant C” as “Defendant,” “Defendant C” as “Defendant,” and “Defendant C” as “Defendant,” respectively.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion that interferes with the plaintiff's business was suspended from making soup business within the real estate of this case, and thereby suffered property damage equivalent to the reduced sales amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 400,000,000 won and damages for delay, which are equivalent to the loss incurred in making soup to the defendant.

B. According to the evidence No. 12 as to whether the Plaintiff interfered with the Defendant’s soup business, the fact that the Defendant filed a complaint with the Plaintiff and E at the Chuncheon District Prosecutors’ Office on suspicion of interference with business can be acknowledged.

However, it is based on the premise that the investigation agency is aware of the above accusation case.